A. A. Zinoviev on the Problems of Historical Comprehension of the Soviet Era

Abstract

One of the most urgent issues of social science nowadays is searching and selecting identification markers for the definition of history as a science that consolidates humanitarian knowledge. One of the most promising directions in this regard is probably an appeal to the scientific heritage of an outstanding Russian philosopher A. A. Zinoviev (1922–2006) including his methodology of logical sociology, which is not actively used by historians. The importance of A. A. Zinoviev’s methodology, in the authors’ opinion, becomes even clearer if we compare it with the methodologies of some modern national and foreign researchers. The article attempts to show three areas in the study of social history of the Soviet period raised by the philosopher: the source problem, the problem of understanding (analysis), and the problem of synthesis (multidisciplinarity), as well as to discuss the principles, approaches, and concrete methods of the studies in Soviet society. A. A. Zinoviev suggested taking into consideration the laws of communal behavior that govern life of a particular individual and society as a whole. On the assumption of the universality of these laws he spoke about the need to explore social objects as the most amenable to scientific analysis and at the same time to use the principle of synthesis of historical knowledge by the way of supplementing of the results obtained at micro and macro levels. The article describes the main methods of logical sociology, which include, according to the scientist, the methods of defining the concepts, mental experiment and combinatorics. In his opinion, only the use of these methods creates a methodological basis for the scientific approach and for the study of social objects. The authors came to the conclusion that despite its scientific attractiveness the concept of logical sociology can not claim universality. However, its practical importance is undoubtedly significant, especially with respect to the history of the Soviet period, which remains very politicized and often beyond the scientific comprehension.